DETAILED ACTION
In response to the office action mailed 01/02/2025, the response was received on 07/02/2025:
Claims 1, 32, and 33 have been amended.
Claims 3 and 6 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-37 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 32, and 33 have been considered but are moot. The amendment to claims 1, 32, and 33 includes incorporating the limitations of claims 3 and 6. Since the remaining dependent claims now depend on the combination of claims 1, 32, and 33 with claims 3 and 6, a new ground of rejection has been made with a different combination of prior art references. Therefore, the arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new combination of prior art references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild (US 20130195248 A1) in view of Venkatachalam (US 20220099599 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Rothschild discloses a target inspection system (Fig. 3) comprising:
a portable x-ray scanner (100) configured to be handheld (Fig. 3) and to output a scanning beam of x-rays (106; scanning pencil beam [0039]);
a transmission detector module (Fig. 3, 300; Fig. 4, 400) configured to detect x-rays of the scanning beam of x-rays that are transmitted through a target when the target (121) is interposed between the portable x-ray scanner and the transmission detector module; and
a coupling arm (Figs. 3 and 4, 300 and 400 coupled to the scanner 100) configured to extend partially around the target and to couple the portable x-ray scanner to the transmission detector module mechanically to form a target inspection assembly, via a mechanical coupling between the coupling arm and the portable x-ray scanner at a proximal end of the coupling arm, and via a mechanical coupling between the coupling arm and the transmission detector module at a distal end of the coupling arm (Figs. 3 and 4), the transmission detector module and the portable x-ray scanner mechanically coupled together via the coupling arm defining an opening configured to receive the target to be interposed therebetween for an x-ray scanning operation (Figs. 3 and 4: gap created by 300 and 400).
Rothschild fails to teach wherein the coupling arm extends partially around the target.
Venkatachalam teaches a target inspection system wherein the coupling arm extends partially around the target (Fig. 1B).
Rothschild and Venkatachalam are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of X-ray inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Rothschild and provide a coupling arm that extends only partially around the target, rather than entirely around the target. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of improving adaptability and ease of access.
Regarding Claim 2: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 1, wherein the transmission detector module is configured to be connected to the coupling arm at only one end (Venkatachalam: Fig. 1B: arm 108 is connected to transmission detector 102 at one end only).
Regarding Claim 4: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the coupling arm is rigid (Rothschild: Figs. 3, 4).
Regarding Claim 5: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the coupling arm is flexible (Venkatachalam: [0032]: “the radiation source support arm 108 may be adjusted to accommodate the difference in the pipe diameter. In some embodiments, the radiation source support arm 108 may include a series of joints to adjust the position and orientation of the radiation source 106.”).
Regarding Claim 7: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the transmission detector module is configured to have an effective active detection area that is adjustable with respect to a given field of the x-rays that are transmitted through the target (Venkatachalam: [0032]: “…the radiation source support arm 108 may include multiple degrees of freedom to rotate and/or translate the radiation source 106 relative to the detector 102”).
Regarding Claim 8: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the mechanical coupling between the coupling arm and the transmission detector module is a rotational mechanical coupling that is configured to enable the transmission detector module to be rotated to adjust the effective active detection area (Venkatachalam: [0032]: “…the radiation source support arm 108 may include multiple degrees of freedom to rotate and/or translate the radiation source 106 relative to the detector 102”).
Regarding Claim 11: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein a mechanism is configured to permit the arm to be mechanically decoupled from the portable x-ray scanner upon application of external force (Venkatachalam: [0040]: “Here, the drive mechanism 104a, detector 102a, radiation source 106a, and radiation source support arm 108a may each include detachable attachment structures configured to be removably coupled to other components.”).
Regarding Claim 16: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 1, wherein the coupling arm includes a mounting bracket configured for mechanically coupling the transmission detector module to the portable x-ray scanner (Venkatachalam: [0040]: “Here, the drive mechanism 104a, detector 102a, radiation source 106a, and radiation source support arm 108a may each include detachable attachment structures configured to be removably coupled to other components. For example, the components may include screws, bolts, quick-release structures, or the like such that a variety of different components may be connected together for a specific application.”), the mounting bracket being detachable from the portable x-ray scanner, the transmission detector module, or both (Venkatachalam: [0040]: “the drive mechanism 104a, detector 102a, radiation source 106a, and radiation source support arm 108a may each include detachable attachment structures configured to be removably coupled to other components.”)
Regarding Claim 17: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the coupling arm is configured to be mechanically decoupled from the portable x-ray scanner, the transmission detector, or both (Venkatachalam: [0040]: “Here, the drive mechanism 104a, detector 102a, radiation source 106a, and radiation source support arm 108a may each include detachable attachment structures configured to be removably coupled to other components.”).
Regarding Claim 18: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the coupling arm includes one or more adjustable joints situated between the proximal and distal ends of the coupling arm (Venkatachalam: [0032]: “In some embodiments, the radiation source support arm 108 may include a series of joints to adjust the position and orientation of the radiation source 106.”).
Regarding Claim 20: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 1, wherein the portable x-ray scanner includes two or more connection points on different respective sides of the portable x-ray scanner (Rothschild: Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 21: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 1, wherein the transmission detector module includes a scintillator material configured to be mechanically coupled to the coupling arm (Rothschild: [0039]).
Regarding Claim 22: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 21, wherein the scintillator material includes at least one strip of scintillator phosphor screen, the transmission detector module further including one or more ribbons of wavelength shifting fibers (WSFs) optically coupled to the at least one strip of scintillator phosphor screen (Rothschild: [0023]).
Regarding Claim 23: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 22, the transmission detector module further including a photodetector (Rothschild: 122), at least one end of a ribbon of the one or more ribbons of WSFs being optically coupled to the photodetector (Rothschild: [0023]).
Regarding Claim 25: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the coupling arm has an adjustable length (Venkatachalam: [0021]: “In other embodiments, the system 100 may be adjustable so that the system 100 may be used with insulated pipes 110 of a range of diameters, wall thicknesses, and insulation thicknesses.”)
Regarding Claim 26: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 1, wherein the transmission detector module includes a non-pixelated detector that detects x-rays of the scanning beam that are transmitted through the target over a scan of the scanning beam (Rothschild: [0039]: “…the detector does not have to be an expensive pixilated detector…”).
Regarding Claim 32: Rothschild discloses a method of target inspection, the method comprising:
mechanically coupling a portable x-ray scanner (100) that is configured to be handheld (Fig. 3) to a transmission detector module via a coupling arm (300/400) to form a target inspection assembly (Fig. 3), including mechanically coupling the coupling arm to the portable x-ray scanner at a proximal end of the coupling arm (Figs. 3 and 4), the coupling arm mechanically coupled to the transmission detector module at a distal end of the coupling arm (Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the mechanically coupling the portable x-ray scanner to the transmission detector module further forms an opening between the portable x-ray scanner and the transmission detector module (Figs. 3 and 4);
interposing a target (121) between the portable x-ray scanner and the transmission detector module, at the opening, in an interposed configuration (Fig.3);
outputting a scanning beam of x-rays (106) from the portable x-ray scanner (106); and
detecting, using the transmission detector module (122), x-rays of the scanning beam that are transmitted through the target (121) in the interposed configuration.
Rothschild fails to teach wherein the coupling arm extends partially around the target.
Venkatachalam teaches a target inspection system wherein the coupling arm extends partially around the target (Fig. 1B).
Rothschild and Venkatachalam are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of X-ray inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Rothschild and provide a coupling arm that extends only partially around the target, rather than entirely around the target. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of improving adaptability and ease of access.
Regarding Claim 33: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses a target inspection system comprising:
means for mechanically coupling a portable x-ray scanner (100) that is configured to be handheld to a transmission detector module via a coupling arm (300/400) to form a target inspection assembly (Fig. 3), including mechanically coupling the coupling arm to the portable x-ray scanner at a proximal end of the coupling arm, the coupling arm mechanically coupled to the transmission detector module at a distal end of the coupling arm (Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the mechanically coupling the portable x-ray scanner to the transmission detector module further forms an opening between the portable x-ray scanner and the transmission detector module (Figs. 3 and 4);
means for interposing a target (121) between the portable x-ray scanner and the transmission detector module with the coupling arm extending around the target, at the opening, in an interposed configuration (Fig. 3);
means for outputting a scanning beam of x-rays (106) from the x-ray scanner (102); and
means for detecting, using the transmission detector module (122), x-rays of the scanning beam that are transmitted through the target in the interposed configuration with the coupling arm extending around the target (Fig. 3).
Rothschild fails to teach wherein the coupling arm extends partially around the target.
Venkatachalam teaches a target inspection system wherein the coupling arm extends partially around the target (Fig. 1B).
Rothschild and Venkatachalam are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of X-ray inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Rothschild and provide a coupling arm that extends only partially around the target, rather than entirely around the target. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of improving adaptability and ease of access.
Regarding Claim 34: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses a target inspection system comprising:
a portable x-ray scanner (100) configured to output a scanning beam of x-rays (106); and
a transmission detector module (122) configured to detect x-rays of the scanning beam of x-rays that are transmitted through a target (121) when the target is interposed between the portable x-ray scanner and the transmission detector module (Figs. 3 and 4).
Rothschild fails to teach wherein the coupling arm extends partially around the target and wherein the transmission detector module is configured to have an effective active detection area that is adjustable with respect to a given field of the x-rays that are transmitted through the target ([0032]: “…the radiation source support arm 108 may include multiple degrees of freedom to rotate and/or translate the radiation source 106 relative to the detector 102”).
Venkatachalam teaches a target inspection system wherein the coupling arm extends partially around the target (Fig. 1B) and wherein the transmission detector module is configured to have an effective active detection area that is adjustable with respect to a given field of the x-rays that are transmitted through the target ([0032]: “…the radiation source support arm 108 may include multiple degrees of freedom to rotate and/or translate the radiation source 106 relative to the detector 102”; Examiner notes that the effective active detection area is adjusted and changed by rotating the radiation source relative to the detector).
Rothschild and Venkatachalam are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of X-ray inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Rothschild and provide a coupling arm that extends only partially around the target, rather than entirely around the target. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of improving adaptability and ease of access.
Regarding Claim 35: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 33, wherein the portable x-ray scanner is configured to be handheld (Rothschild: Fig. 1; [0014]).
Regarding Claim 36: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 34, wherein the portable x-ray scanner is configured to be handheld (Rothschild: Fig. 1; [0014]).
Regarding Claim 37: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 34, further including a rotational mechanical coupling between the portable x-ray scanner and the transmission detector module, the rotational coupling configured to enable the transmission detector module to be rotated to adjust the effective active detection area (Venkatachalam: [0032]: “…the radiation source support arm 108 may include multiple degrees of freedom to rotate and/or translate the radiation source 106 relative to the detector 102”).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Ertel (US 20060109958 A1).
Regarding Claim 31: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 1, but does not teach further including one or more lasers mounted at the portable x-ray scanner and configured to indicate a position of the scanning beam of x-rays for alignment of the transmission detector module with the scanning beam.
However, Ertel teaches using lasers to align an x-ray detector with a scanner [0042-44]. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Rothschild and Venkatachalam to incorporate the teachings of Ertel and include one or more lasers mounted at the portable x-ray scanner and configured to indicate a position of the scanning beam of x-rays for alignment of the transmission detector module with the scanning beam. One would be motivated to make such a modification to enhance accuracy and precision and provide real-time feedback.
Claim(s) 9-10, 13-14, 19, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai (US 20190302037 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, but Rothschild and Venkatachalam do not teach wherein the arm is spring loaded such that it remains disengaged from the inspection object or engaged with the inspection object absent application of external force.
However, Safai teaches an X-ray system teach wherein the arm is spring loaded such that it remains disengaged from the inspection object or engaged with the inspection object absent application of external force (Safai: [0069]).
Rothschild, Venkatachalam, and Safai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of X-ray inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Rothschild and Venkatachalam to incorporate the teachings of Safai and provide a spring loaded arm. Doing so would enable easier positioning and locking, including enhanced mobility and flexibility.
Regarding Claim 10: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai discloses the inspection system of claim 1, further including an actuator configured to move the arm into an engaged position with respect to the inspection object or into a disengaged position with respect to the inspection object (Safai: [0069]).
Regarding Claim 13: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the coupling arm is mechanically coupled to the portable x-ray scanner at the proximal end of the coupling arm via a hinge mechanism (Safai: [0069]).
Regarding Claim 14: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai discloses the inspection system of claim 13, wherein the hinge mechanism is configured to permit the coupling arm to be mechanically decoupled from the portable x-ray scanner upon application of external force (Safai: [0069]).
Regarding Claim 19: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai discloses the inspection system of claim 10, wherein the coupling arm includes two or more adjustable joints situated between the proximal and distal ends of the coupling arm (Venkatachalam: [0032]: “In some embodiments, the radiation source support arm 108 may include a series of joints to adjust the position and orientation of the radiation source 106.”).
Regarding Claim 27: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the transmission detector module is configured to provide information about a spectral content of the transmitted x-rays (Safai: [0045]: “the intensities and data 124 correspond to an energy of the backscatter.”).
Regarding Claim 28: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai discloses the inspection system of claim 1, wherein the portable x-ray scanner (Safai: 112) includes a backscatter detector that is configured to detect x-rays of the scanning beam that are backscattered by the target (Safai: [0040]: “In one illustrative example, data 124 in scan 116 comprises pixels that indicate intensities of a backscatter of x-ray beam 118 detected by scanner 112.”).
Regarding Claim 29: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai discloses the inspection system of claim 1, further including an output interface configured to output image data for providing an image of the target for inspection of the target (Safai: 1314).
Regarding Claim 30: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai discloses the target inspection system of claim 29, wherein the output interface is further configured to output transmission image data (Venkatachalam: [0057]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam in further view of Kioduchim (US 20050200802 A1).
Regarding Claim 12: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the inspection system of claim 1, but they do not teach wherein the coupling mechanism of the coupling arm to the scanner or the coupling arm to the transmission detector module includes a magnetic linkage.
However, Kioduchim teaches a magnetic hinge for coupling objects (Figs. 1-4, elements 20 and 30). Because the claimed invention involves technical considerations in both the mechanical arts and X-ray related arts, Rothschild, Venkatachalam, and Kioduchim are all considered analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Rothschild and Venkatachalam to incorporate the teachings of Kioduchim and include wherein the coupling mechanism of the coupling arm to the scanner or the coupling arm to the transmission detector module includes a magnetic linkage. Doing so would allow for rapid assembly and disassembly of the inspection system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam and Safai, in further view of Kioduchim.
Regarding Claim 15: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Safai discloses the inspection system of claim 14, wherein Safai teaches a hinge mechanism [0069].
Safai fails to explicitly teach the details about the hinge, allowing for that which is known in the art of mechanical coupling.
Kioduchim teaches a magnetic hinge for coupling objects (Figs. 1-4, elements 20 and 30). Because the claimed invention involves technical considerations in both the mechanical arts and X-ray related arts, Rothschild, Venkatachalam, Safai, and Kioduchim are all considered analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Rothschild, Venkatachalam, and Safai to incorporate the teachings of Kioduchim and provide a hinge mechanism including a magnetic linkage. Doing so would allow for rapid assembly and disassembly of the inspection system.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam, in further view of Persyk (US 5493176 A).
Regarding Claim 24: Rothschild in view of Venkatachalam discloses the target inspection system of claim 23, but neither Venkatachalam nor Rothschild specify wherein the photodetector is a photomultiplier tube.
However, because photomultiplier tubes are well known photodetectors in the art as evidenced by Persyk (Col. 1, lines 11-13), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Rothschild and Venkatachalam to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. One would be motivated to use photomultiplier tubes for their versatility, proven reliability, and high sensitivity.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Makiya can be reached on (571) 272-2273. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884